I did read quite a bit after the first post.
Quote:
|
Liberal and radical viewpoints tend to dominate subvertising, as one of the ideas behind the concept is to incite change by presenting easily recognizable and understandable images that can be shocking and even disturbing in their frankness. However, some people believe that subverts that are mockingly reminiscent of corporate or political symbols are simply giving those symbols undue publicity. People in this school of thought often argue that subverts serve no real purpose, and that, by bringing those icons forward in the public consciousness, subvertising in fact ends up supporting that which it was trying to destroy. Less commonly , subvertisements are used by conservatives. For example during the U.S. presidential election of 2000, the Republicans made signs Sore Loserman, for the Democratic party's candidates Gore/Lieberman, to express the uncertainty of election results.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvertising
Although I can understand it from an artistic viewpoint, I guess I don't get it as "jamming" since it gives "those symbols undue publicity".